He shot them dead. It’s a figure of speech, meaning the shot was fatal. So the headline is fine. He shot dead a cat. He shot dead an old lady. He shot dead a black kid.
The headline is technically grammatically correct but ambiguous. "...shot and killed unarmed black man" would have been better. If you absolutely need to stick to word/character count, "shot unarmed black man dead" would be less ambiguous and more in keeping with how people actually use "shot dead". I've watched a lot of westerns and I can think of quite a few where someone says "I shot him dead" but not one where someone says "I shot dead him".
Yes and no, technically without "dead" and leaving the rest of the sentence unchanged, it could imply the cop has a separate murder charge. A better headline is "London Cop Charged With Murder After Shooting And Killing Unarmed Black Man."
This whole article has a few confusing points, and the article never clarifies them. So the vehicle is confirmed to be involved with a shooting the day before. The vehicle does not belong to the rapper, but was driving it. How did the rapper acquire the vehicle? Was he actually involved in the shooting the day before or not? Did someone he knows give it to him? Lots of questions, bad article.
Okay, I'm really confused by this. He did not own the vehicle, but this was a vehicle used in a crime the day before. How did the rapper end up driving the suspected car???